The Necessity of Extremism

by Karl Radl

EXTREMISM SEEMS to be everywhere these days, from Animal Rights Extremists to Islamic extremists to Far Right Extremists, everything seems to be ‘extreme’. The irony of this is that this identification tag of ‘extremism’ is extremely arbitrary since there is no way to definitely label one group ‘moderate’ and another ‘extremist’ other than to look at them as subjective expressions of value to the System.

In other words, when one is assigned the tag of ‘moderate’ then it is a positive valuation since ‘moderate’ means that one is willing to work with and promote ideological positions that are either less harmful to, or in sync, with those of the System. Therefore, when one is assigned the tag of ‘extremist’ then it is a negative valuation since ‘extremist’ means that one is willing to work with and promote ideological positions that are either harmful, or out of sync, with those of the System.

Thus, we can see that ‘extremist’ is simply a propagandistic synonym for ‘enemy of the System’ while ‘moderate’ translates to ‘friend of the System’.

What in general makes an ‘extremist’ an ‘extremist’ in the eyes of the System is that they are unwilling to bend their ideology — be it religious, political, social and/or economic — to the ideological requirements of the System and are thus enemies of the System because they stand in opposition to the norms and forms that it wishes to establish. Therefore, what makes an ‘extremist’ an ‘extremist’ is uncompromising belief in their ideology that supersedes any loyalty they have to the System and therefore places them outside the System.

They are the opposite to those with the ‘slave morality’ that Nietzsche so deplored in that they are prepared to fight for what they believe in and they will not back down from a fight with the System if one is required. This is part of why ‘extremists’ tend to perform the best out of any group. While ‘extremist’ ideologies can lead to ideologically-based missteps — like Islamic State provoking the United States into a fight in Iraq and Syria based on their belief that it would trigger Allah to send them angelic reinforcements — if an ‘extremist’ ideology is based on reason and science (for example: National Socialism) rather than metaphysical speculation and established ritual (for example: Wahhabi Islam), then it will not likely make such mistakes, but instead stand tall, strong and true as a revolt against the modern world.

Those who want to ‘compromise’ ideologically are the sort of people who believe — seemingly seriously– that if you are ‘nice’ to homosexuals and Jews as a National Socialist then you are going to get somewhere because they’ll be ‘fooled’ into voting for you since you are ‘not so bad’. The problem — as exemplified by groups such as the ‘Sweden Democrats’ and ‘Alternative for Germany’ — is once you start doing this then your ‘LARPing’ turns out to be serious and all of a sudden your nationalist party has become a civic nationalist group promoting gay rights in Saudi Arabia.

In other words: you have become a ‘moderate’ and reinforce the myth of political choice that the system has created as a defense mechanism to keep the average citizen fat, happy and believing they are masters of their own destiny.

The other problem is that by not being ‘extremists’ then you cede the recruiting pool of young radicals — i.e. future activist cadre — to other groups who are willing to occupy that ground.

A good example of this: the French convert to ‘radical Islam’, Michaël Chiolo, who was behind the recent violent revolt at the Conde-sur-Sarthe high security prison. What you may not have picked up even if you saw the news concerning this event was that prior to converting to Islam and becoming an Islamic activist and proto-leader, Chiolo flirted with the French nationalist scene (presumably that around Le Front National that has now become part of the System) and found it far too milquetoast for him without the answers he sought. So he looked into radical Islam and found his answers. Nationalism lost a potential activist and leader, while Islam gained one, and all because Chiolo realized that many so-called ‘nationalists’ do not truly believe in their ideals, let alone act on them.

Another example is the case of US Air Force Intelligence Officer, Monica Witt, who became disenchanted with US foreign policy towards Iran — and rightly so — and started to look for other answers; she found them, like Chiolo, in Islam. She then began working as a mole for Iranian intelligence and has since fled there and taken up a new life. Yet, if nationalism were extreme enough and offered her answers she would not have converted to Islam and begun working for Iran.

That is a pathetic state of affairs, isn’t it?

Without extremism nationalism is nothing, and without nationalism there is no future for the peoples of Europe.

That is why extremism is necessary and is to be applauded, not deplored.

Therefore — to paraphrase Joseph Goebbels — the most extreme nationalist is today only just extreme enough.

* * *

Source: The Purity Spiral

Previous post

COVID Capers, Elite Style

Next post

"Holocaust Consciousness" Is Now Essential to Being Jewish

Notify of
Inline Feedback
View all comments
James Clayton
James Clayton
3 September, 2020 6:21 am ”

I like fundamental– fundamentals– fundamentalism. Radical was good and then degenerated into rad.

3 September, 2020 2:29 pm

Excelente artículo. Extremista también se puede definir como un individuo insatisfecho con el sistema, por diversas razones, racial, económico, religioso, social, cultural, esto sucede cuando un sistema está desequilibrado (asimetría) y cuanto mayor sea el desequilibrio (asimetría), mayor será el conflicto. Estados Unidos ha importado masivamente razas, etnias, culturas, religiones, ideologías de todo el mundo, incluyendo las más salvajes, primitivas, simios y violentas. ¿Qué más puedes esperar con este país? El monstruo Frankenstein se escapa de las manos de su creador judío.

Reply to  Panadechi
7 September, 2020 11:33 am

Diversidad extrema

4 September, 2020 6:23 am

I hope you print the full list of points as you expressly request no long articles. Rothschild’s 25 Point Plan For World Domination – 9. Seize properties by any means to secure submission and sovereignty. 10. Foment wars and control the peace conferences so that neither of the combatants gains territory placing them further in debt and therefore into our power. 11. Choose candidates for public office who will be “servile and obedient to our commands, so they may be readily used as pawns in our game.” 12. Use the Press for propaganda to control all outlets of public information, while remaining in the shadows, clear of blame. 13. Make the masses believe they had been the prey of criminals. Then restore order to appear as the saviors. 14. Create… Read more »

Wolf Stoner
Wolf Stoner
9 September, 2020 2:02 am

Very well presented. Pure truth. The term “moderate” in present circumstances could be translated as coward, traitor and lowly. “Moderates” are those who are unwilling and unable to fight. In other words “moderates” are the useless lowly trash who can spoil any undertaking and any ideology. To admit such trash into any movement is to ruin it. We have multiple empirical confirmations of this truth. Nietzsche put this question in an excellent fable form: “Why so hard?” the kitchen coal once said to the diamond. “After all, are we not close kin?” Why so soft? O my brothers, thus I ask you: are you not after all my brothers? Why so soft, so pliant and yielding? Why is there so much denial, self-denial, in your hearts? So little destiny in… Read more »

13 November, 2020 10:16 am

Das politische System verfolgt ein definiertes Ziel – es lautet: White Genoide! Aus diesem Grund bürdet uns das politische System gewisse Probleme auf, die automatisch – und vom politischen System ungewollt – Lösungsansätze generieren. Diese Lösungsansätze für die uns aufgebürdeten Probleme werden aus einem Überlebensinstinkt heraus generiert. ‘Inadäquat’ ist ein Synonym für ‘konservativ’ (geworden) Die Lösungsansätze für unsere Probleme können adäquater oder inadäquater Art sein. Unsere Lösungsansätze inadäquater Art gelten als ‘konservativ’ (im Sinne von zulässig), und unsere Lösungsansätze adäquater Art als ‘extremistisch’ (im Sinne von unzulässig). Etwas Psychologie Die Systempsychologen müssen unter allen Umständen verhindern, dass wir adäquate Lösungen für unsere existenzbedrohenden Probleme finden – und anwenden. Sie haben daher den mathematischen Begriff ‘extrem’ mit einer neuen Bedeutung versehen und in das “Denken” des Pöbels eingeführt. Aus dem mathematischen… Read more »